Principal cancelled 'O Canada' in school

Post Reply New Topic

As Conservative MPs called for the national anthem to return to a rural New Brunswick school's morning rituals, the principal of the school says he is taking the matter to a human rights commission.

Principal Erik Millett has been at the centre of controversy since it was learned he ended the daily O Canada ritual at Belleisle Elementary in Upper Belleisle, N.B. because of the complaints of two parents.

In a statement to CTV News Friday, Millett wrote "The only thing I really have to say at this point is that I have contacted the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission and I will be pursuing the question of accommodation around this issue of through the Human Rights Commission and hopefully some clarity will come from the ruling they provide."

Locals have been gathering signatures for a petition to bring back the anthem. Susan Boyd, who had a daughter at the school, has been leading the charge, but now others in the community are gathering behind her.

"I think it's very important we get it back in this school and many others," local resident Ron MacDonald told CTV Atlantic Friday.

New Brunswick Conservative MP Mike Allen raised the issue in the House of Commons Friday.

"This is political correctness run wild," he said. "There's nothing more inclusive than O Canada, it is a song that belongs to each and every Canadian."

Another N.B. Tory MP, Keith Ashfield, echoed those comments in a media scrum later Friday.

"We should celebrate our country and I believe the national anthem is one way we do that," he told reporters. "I don't believe in bans to our national anthem."

New Brunswick Education Minister Kelly Lamrock has said he will do everything in his power to make morning singings of O Canada mandatory.

Principal explains decision

Radio Host Tyler Glen of Star-FM in Brandon, Manitoba spoke to Millett Friday morning.

Millett, who ran as a candidate for the Green Party in the last election, has faced suggestions that his personal views were responsible for the decision. But he says there were two reasons for his decision; parent's complaints and that the anthem disrupted students in the morning.

"It's true that we have students, that for various reasons, are not allowed to sing the national anthem (for) whatever reasons, religion, beliefs, values," he told the radio station.

"The difficulty we were having were that children we having physical reactions to the anthem. They would scrunch up their face, put their fingers in their ears, bend down and get on the floor because they felt they were doing something they weren't allowed to do," he added.

Millett also said that because his school is rural, late buses in the winter meant that students would arrive during the playing of the anthem, which was "chaotic."

But he said that the anthem has not been completely cancelled, and is still played at monthly assemblies.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090130/anthem_controversy_090130/20090130?hub=TopStories


I find it bad enought that America makes its children face the flag and say the pledge of allegiance everyday in school... this is school, not the army.

Armies train by marching in step. Religions around the world incorporate many forms of singing and chanting into their rituals. Citizens sing the National Anthem before sporting events. Why do we participate in these various synchronized activities? A new study, published in the January issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, suggests that when people engage in synchronous activity together, they become more likely to cooperate with other group members. Stanford University psychologists Scott S. Wiltermuth and Chip Heath conducted a series of experiments to see how synchronous movement affects group interactions. In the first experiment, two groups of volunteers walked around campus - one group was told to walk normally and the other group was told to walk in-step. Following the walks, the volunteers participated in an economics game that measures expectations of cooperation- the more the volunteers cooperate, the larger the payoff they would receive at the end of the experiment.

In the second experiment, volunteers listened to music via headphones and had to move cups back and forth in time to the music. The volunteers were divided into different groups, so that some of the groups listened to the same music and thus moved their cups in a synchronous manner. In the other groups, the volunteers listened to music at different tempos, so their movements were not synchronized. This was again followed by an economics game where more cooperation would result in larger payoff. This final game was designed so that players could put tokens in a public account, or keep the tokens for themselves. The general economic strategy in this game is to behave selfishly keeping one's tokens in a private account while at the same time taking advantage of others' contributions to the public account.

The results showed that synchrony fosters cooperation- even when all of the volunteers had financial incentives to cooperate, the volunteers from the synchronized groups tended to be more cooperative during the games (and ended up earning more money) than volunteers from groups who had moved asynchronously. And even more interesting, in the last economics game, participants from the synchronized groups were more willing to contribute tokens to the public account, sacrificing their own money to help their group. In addition, volunteers from the synchronous groups reported greater feelings of being on the same team. Thus, the synchronous participants cooperated during the games in part because they felt as though they were part of a team.

Societies rely on cooperation among their members to thrive and be successful. These findings suggest that cultural practices which involve synchrony (such as dancing, singing or marching) may enable groups to produce members who are cooperative and willing to make personal sacrifices, for the benefit of the group. The authors conclude that "synchrony rituals may have therefore endowed some cultural groups with an advantage in societal evolution, leading some groups to survive where others have failed."
Source: Association for Psychological Science

"It's true that we have students, that for various reasons, are not allowed to sing the national anthem (for) whatever reasons, religion, beliefs, values," he told the radio station.

"The difficulty we were having were that children we having physical reactions to the anthem. They would scrunch up their face, put their fingers in their ears, bend down and get on the floor because they felt they were doing something they weren't allowed to do," he added.

From an education perspective, it is developmentally inappropriate to have kids do the national anthem thing in elementary school, since they don't really understand what a country is until later grades ("country" is an abstract concept). Pushing it on them before they know what it means amounts to brainwashing. Teachers should know that. Duh.

And then when kids are old enough to know what it's about, they often think the whole thing is pretty dumb, becuase there's no need to push people into being loyal to their country. People are naturally loyal, and it takes a lot for them to lose that. It would be like having your family do an oath of allegiance at the breakfast table every morning. If you have to, there's something wrong.

I think it makes sense to save it for special occasions when country matters, like Remembrance Day. Even at sporting events it doesn't make sense (unless they're international competitions, in which case you crank it up ).

Nationalism - middle childhood
Children in this stage don’t understand what a country is. They may know the name of their country, as well as their city, but they don’t understand that the city is inside the country and that they live in both. They won’t get this until they master hierarchical classifications.

Mathilde B. 6;8: Have you heard of Switzerland? Yes. What is it? A canton. And what is Geneva? A town. Where is Geneva? In Switzerland (The child draws two circles side by side). Are you Swiss? No, I’m Genevese.

Claude M. 6;9: What is Switzerland? It’s a country. And Geneva? A town. Where is Geneva? In Switzerland (The child draws the two circles side by side but the circle for Geneva is smaller). I’m drawing the circle for Geneva smaller because Geneva is smaller. Switzerland is very big. Quite right, but where is Geneva? In Switzerland. Are you Swiss? Yes. And are you Genevese? Oh no! I’m Swiss now. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:563-564]

They don’t know what a foreigner is, either. This is not because they don’t know what the word means, but because of their cognitive developmental level. They don’t understand that whether you are a foreigner or not depends on which country you are currently in. It’s too relative for them at this stage.

Georges B. 7;5: What nationality have you? I’m Swiss. Are you a foreigner? No. Do you know any foreigners? Yes. Who, for instance? People living a long way off. Now imagine you were travelling in France, could you also be a foreigner in certain ways? No, I’m Swiss. Could a Frenchman be a foreigner? Of course a Frenchman is a foreigner. And is a Frenchman a foreigner in France? Naturally. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:572-573]

Marie B. 8;0: What nationality have you? I’m from Geneva. Are you a foreigner? No. Do you know any foreigners? Yes, the people of Lausanne. If you go to Lausanne, do you become a foreigner? No, I’m Genevese. And is a person from Lausanne a foreigner? Yes, he lives in Lausanne. And if he comes to Geneva, does he stay a foreigner or not? He’s still a native of Lausanne, so he’s a foreigner. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:573]

When asked which country they like best, children answer on the basis of personal impressions.

Evelyne M. 5;9: I like Italy. It’s a nicer place than Switzerland. Why? I was there these holidays. They have the loveliest cakes, not like in Switzerland, where there are things inside that make you cry. . . .

Denise S. 6;0: I like Switzerland because it has such pretty houses. I was in the mountains and they were all full of chalets. It’s so pretty, and you can get milk there.

Jacques G. 6;3: I like Germany best because my mummy just got back from there to-night. It’s ever so big and far away an’ my mummy lives there. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:566]

They don’t know anything more about other countries than they do about their own.

Monique C. 5;5: Are there any people who don’t live in Geneva? Yes, there are the people living in the Diablerets. How do you know? I was on holidays there. Are there people who don’t live either in Geneva or in the Diablerets? Yes, there is Lausanne. My aunt lives there. Is there any difference between the people of Geneva and other people? Yes, the others are nicer. Why? The people who don’t live in Geneva are nicer than the people who do? Oh yes, in the Diablerets I always get chocolate to eat.

Bernard D. 6;3: Have you heard of any people who are not Swiss? Yes, there are the people of Valais (Valais, as everyone knows, is one of the 22 Swiss cantons, and the child himself is a native of Valais). And have you heard of other countries too? Are there any differences between the countries? Oh yes, there isn’t a lake everywhere. Are the people the same? No, people don’t all have the same voice and then they don’t all wear the same pullovers. At Nax, I saw some lovely pullovers, all embroidered in front. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:568-569]

When asked which country they would choose to belong to, they choose their own, and assume everyone, worldwide, would also choose their (the subject’s) country. (Note that this study was done only a few years after World War II, when much of Europe was still rebuilding.)

Charles K. 6;11: If you were born without any nationality and you were allowed to choose what nationality you liked, which would you choose? I’d become Swiss. Why? Because there’s more to eat. Do you think the French are nicer or not so nice or just the same as the Swiss? The Swiss are nicer. Why? I don’t know. If I were to say to a little German boy, for instance, “Now imagine you were born without any nationality and you could choose what nationality you like,” what do you think he would choose? He’d say that he’d like to be Swiss. Why? Because we’re better off in Switzerland. And if I asked him who was nicer? He’d say the Swiss are. Why? Because they didn’t go to war.

Brian S. 6;2 (English): If you were born without any nationality and you could now choose whichever you liked, what country would you choose? English, because I know lots of them. Do you think the English are nicer, not so nice, or just the same as the Swiss? The English are nicer. Why? The Swiss are always quarrelling. If a Swiss child were given a free choice of nationality, what do you think he would choose? He’d choose English. Why? Because I was born there. He couldn’t choose any other country? Yes, France perhaps. Why France? It’s a lovely country. I’ve been there on holidays at the seaside. And who do the Swiss think are nicer, the Swiss or the English? The English. Why? Because . . . Why? Because they just are. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:576]

The answers for this last question may have been more nationalistic than previous answers because the children were asked their nationality to begin with, which may have encouraged them to be loyal to their country.

Overall, these answers suggest that it is inappropriate to have children at this stage participate in nationalistic activities like standing for the national anthem at school each morning. They have no idea what a country is, so the activity may confuse them, and they are naturally loyal anyways when asked, so it’s not like they need persuading.

Nationalism: late childhood
By this stage, children can do hierarchical classifications, so they understand that cities are inside countries, but they still don’t understand they can have membership in both at the same time. The concept of ‘country’ is still too abstract for them at this time.

Florence N. 7;3: What is Switzerland? It’s a country. And Geneva? It’s a town. Where is Geneva? In Switzerland (Drawing correct). What nationality are you? I’m from Vaud. Where is the canton of Vaud? In Switzerland, not far away (The child is made to do another drawing showing Switzerland and the canton of Vaud. Result correct). Are you Swiss as well? No. How is that, since you’ve said that the canton of Vaud is in Switzerland? You can’t be two things at once, you have to choose, you can be a Vaudois like me, but not two things together. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:564]

Jean-Claude B. 9;3: You’ve heard of Switzerland, I suppose? Yes, it’s a country. And what is Geneva? A town. Where is this town? In Switzerland (The drawing was correct). What is your nationality? I’m Bernese. Are you Swiss? Yes. How is that? Because Berne is in Switzerland. So you can be Bernese and Swiss at the same time? No, I can’t. Why not? Because I’m already Bernese. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:564]

They still don’t get what a foreigner is either. They’re getting closer, but it’s still hit or miss combining nationality and location at the same time.

Jean-Jacques R. 8;8: What nationality have you? I’m Swiss. What is a Swiss when he’s in Switzerland? He’s Swiss. Is he a foreigner? No. And what is a Swiss who goes to France? He’s a foreigner and Swiss, because he’s Swiss. And what is a Frenchman? A foreigner. What is a Frenchman who comes to Switzerland? He’s Swiss because he comes to Geneva. And if he stays in France? He’s French. Is he a foreigner too? Yes. And when the Frenchman is in Switzerland, is he a foreigner then too? No, he’s in Switzerland. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:574]

Monique B. 9;4: What nationality are you? I’m from Vaud. What is a Swiss in Switzerland? He’s Swiss. Is he a foreigner? No. If a Swiss goes to France, what is he? A foreigner and a Vaudois at the same time. Why? Because the French don’t know us properly and look on us as foreigners. And what is a Frenchman? A foreigner. What is a Frenchman who comes to Switzerland? He’s a foreigner, but a little bit Swiss too. Why? Because he’s come to Switzerland. What is a Frenchman who stays in France? A Frenchman and a foreigner. And if I asked a little French boy the same question, what would he tell me? That he’s French. He’d tell me that he’s a foreigner as well? No, he’s French. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:574]

Now that children have a basic concept of personality types, they apply those to foreigners, not always in a good way.

Murielle D. 8;2: Have you heard of foreigners? Yes, there are Germans and French. Are there any differences between these foreigners? Yes, the Germans are bad, they’re always making war. The French are poor and everything’s dirty there. Then I’ve heard of Russians too, they’re not at all nice. Do you have any personal knowledge of the French, Germans or Russians or have you read something about them? No. Then how do you know? Everyone says so. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:569]

Michel M. 9;6: Have you heard of such people as foreigners? Yes, the French, the Americans, the Russians, the English. . . . Quite right. Are there differences between all these people? Oh yes, they don’t speak the same language. And what else? I don’t know. What do you think of the French, for instance? Do you like them or not? Try and tell me as much as possible. The French are very serious, they don’t worry about anything, an’ it’s dirty there. And what do you think of the Americans? They’re ever so rich and clever. They’ve discovered the atom bomb. And what do you think of the Russians? They’re bad, they’re always wanting to make war. And what’s your opinion of the English? I don’t know . . . they’re nice . . . Now look, how did you come to know all you’ve told me? I don’t know . . . I’ve heard it . . . that’s what people say. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:569-570]

Even though they still don’t get the concept of country, they now like their own country best, out of loyalty because they live there. It’s home, and home is best.

Denis K. 8;3: I like Switzerland because I was born there.

Pierrette J. 8;9: I like Switzerland because it’s my own country. My mummy and daddy are Swiss, so I think Switzerland’s a nice place.

Jacqueline M. 9;3: I like Switzerland. It’s the loveliest country for me. It’s my own country. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:566]

They are naturally (and blindly) loyal to their own country, and they naturally think it is the best country in the whole world, because it is, of course, but they also realize that other children would choose their own countries out of loyalty too, even though their countries aren’t as good.

Marina T. 7;9 (Italian). If you were born without any nationality and you were now given a free choice, what nationality would you choose? Italian. Why? Because it’s my country. I like it better than Argentina where my father works, because Argentina isn’t my country. Are Italians just the same, or more, or less intelligent than the Argentinians? What do you think? The Italians are more intelligent. Why? I can see the people I live with, they’re Italians. If I were to give a child from Argentina a free choice of nationality, what do you think he would choose? He’d want to stay an Argentinian. Why? Because, that’s his country. And if I were to ask him who is more intelligent, the Argentinians or the Italians, what do you think he would answer? He’d say the Argentinians. Why? Because there wasn’t any war. Good. Now who was really right in the choice he made and what he said, the Argentinian child, you or both? I was right. Why? Because I chose Italy.

Jeannot P. 8;0 (St. Gall) (Bright child). If you had no nationality and you were given a free choice of nationality, what would you choose? I’d choose to be St. Gallois. Why? I don’t know. Who is nicer, an Italian or a St. Gallois, or are they just the same? What do you think? The St. Gallois are nicer. Why? Because I know. And who is more intelligent? The St. Gallois are more intelligent. Why? Because my Daddy is a St. Gallois. If I were to give an Italian a free choice of nationality, what do you think he would choose? Italy. Why? Because I know a boy at school who is an Italian, and he wants to stay Italian. And if I were to ask this boy who is nicer, a St. Gallois or an Italian, what would he say? I don’t know what he thinks, but perhaps he would say Italian. Why? I don’t know. And if I were to ask him who is more intelligent? He’d say Italian. Why? Because he has a Daddy too. Now what do you really think? Who was right, you or the Italian? You haven’t answered the same thing, now who do you think gave the best answer? I did. Why? Because the St. Gallois are more intelligent. [Piaget and Weil, 1951:576-577]

From an education perspective, it is developmentally inappropriate to have kids do the national anthem thing in elementary school, since they don't really understand what a country is until later grades ("country" is an abstract concept). Pushing it on them before they know what it means amounts to brainwashing. Teachers should know that. Duh.

And then when kids are old enough to know what it's about, they often think the whole thing is pretty dumb, becuase there's no need to push people into being loyal to their country. People are naturally loyal, and it takes a lot for them to lose that. It would be like having your family do an oath of allegiance at the breakfast table every morning. If you have to, there's something wrong.

I think it makes sense to save it for special occasions when country matters, like Remembrance Day. Even at sporting events it doesn't make sense (unless they're international competitions, in which case you crank it up ).

Would you kill for a piece of dirt